Why Ford Merged Next Gen Architecture with Current Platform for Broader Vehicle Software

Ford’s ambitious plan to revolutionize its vehicle software architecture faced a major pivot when the company decided to cancel its next-generation electrical architecture project known as FNV4. Initially envisioned as a cutting-edge zonal architecture, FNV4 promised to reduce complexity and cost by minimizing electronic control units (ECUs) and wiring, a strategy pioneered by Tesla and other EV manufacturers. However, rising costs, stagnant electric vehicle sales, and the need to support a broad range of vehicles led Ford to rethink its approach.

Doug Field, Ford’s software chief and former Tesla and Apple engineer, explained that the company chose to adapt its existing third-generation architecture, now called FNV3.X, instead of building an entirely new platform. This domain-based system, while less elegant than a zonal architecture, allows Ford to deliver advanced infotainment, driver assistance features like BlueCruise, and over-the-air (OTA) software updates across both electric and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. This incremental approach expands software capabilities to a wider vehicle portfolio, including hybrids and traditional gas-powered models.

The domain architecture organizes vehicle systems by function, with a few primary ECUs managing critical operations and numerous smaller microprocessors handling service tasks. This design mirrors biological systems where the brain coordinates major actions while reflexes handle immediate responses. Such an architecture supports complex vehicles like the F-150 Super Duty with specialized modules, while maintaining software control and compatibility across the entire lineup.

One of the biggest challenges Ford faces is delivering a seamless software experience not only for EVs, which are essentially computers on wheels, but also for millions of ICE and hybrid vehicles with limited battery capacity. Field highlighted innovations such as partial OTA updates and energy-aware software delivery that prevent draining the smaller 12V batteries in traditional vehicles, ensuring updates can be applied safely and efficiently.

Ford’s decision to halt the FNV4 project reflects a pragmatic response to market realities, including geopolitical trade tensions and cost pressures. While the zonal architecture remains appealing for its simplicity and cost savings, the domain-based approach offers greater flexibility and broader applicability. Ultimately, Field emphasizes that customers care about a great software experience in vehicles they love, not the underlying technical architecture. Ford’s focus is on making software 'soft'—adaptable, centralized, and decoupled from legacy hardware constraints.

This strategic shift highlights the broader automotive industry challenge of balancing innovation with legacy system integration. As automakers transition to software-defined vehicles, the ability to deliver consistent, scalable, and secure software updates across diverse vehicle types will be critical. Ford’s experience underscores the importance of adaptable architectures that support both current and future vehicle technologies while managing cost and complexity.